NRA Says Teachers Should Have Guns - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

daswig · 03-30-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

yes, but America has 10,000 gun deaths a year and the UK has 100-200, you know?

How many non-gun homicides occur in the US and England each year? if guns are the reason the US has so many gun deaths, then we should have a comparable rate of non-gun homicieds to England, right? But we don't. Americans kill more people than English people do. Guns, no guns, the tool doesn't matter. It's the intent of the person that is what's important.

Quote:

As for using guns against the government if they become corrupt... I dont think we live in the same world as the one in which that idea existed. You cannot defend yourself against the power of the state with a rifle or a hand gun.

Really? Tell that to the Viet Minh, Viet Cong, et cetera.

Rebels rarely win guerilla wars. Governments often lose them.

Quote:

Does anyone have any idea how arming teachers would actually be implemented? What kind of standards would be set up for allowing teachers to use the firearms?

Simple. Use the standard self-defense test. Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Treat teachers the same as everybody else if they are involved with a shooting.

Quote:

Banning the guns in America is not going to stop their production outside of our borders, and it is also not going to stop the already occuring illegal traffic of those guns into this country, on the contrary it's going to make it much more lucrative and profitable.

Absolutely correct. It's illegal to grow opium poppies world-wide for the most part. Same with cultivating coca. How hard is it to find heroin or cocaine? Prohibition creates far more problems than it solves.

Quote:

There is absolutely no logic to arming teachers, or airline pilots, or 7-11 clerks. Being trained in the proper use of a gun is not the same as being trained in the proper methods of protection. It only takes one criminal with a knife to hold someone hostage to demand the gun in the teachers desk to put a gun in the hands of a criminal.

Yup, just like it isn't logical to give cops guns. Firearms are indisputably the BEST means of self-defense out there. Even KELLERMANN admits this. This is backed up by figures released by the US DOJ in 1994, which showed that of all people attacked, people who resisted with guns were the least likely BY FAR to not be injured. I don't know many people who would give up their gun to a knife-wielding attacker. I sure as shit wouldn't, since they're dangerous enough to all parties involved with a knife, so why make them more dangerous?

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-30-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease. Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

By contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Got that off of Freerepublic, suppose the source will be the thing that makes the post get ignored http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357805/posts

Fraiser Institute, maybe more legit

Quote:

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.

Bottom line, dead horse talking point line, you are delusional if you think disarming the general population will lead to a drop in crime, without pulling up any more sites this can be seen with the violent crime rates rising in countries such as Britain and Australia, including robbery, murder, and assault.

Numbers don't lie, get back to reality.

scout · 03-31-2005, 03:19 AM

Well to get us back on track .....

As a 10+ year member of the NRA I see no need for teachers to be armed. Armed security should be sufficient. I believe it would be to difficult to insure that all teachers have a secure place to store their firearm. Even arming security guards imposes problems with keeping their firearms secure at all times. We certainly don't need our schools resembling prisons with high walls, guard towers, metal detectors and dogs.

The cost of freedom is sometimes higher than we anticipate. There is nothing we can do about these random school shootings if we still wish to remain in a free society. To often we are willing to give up hard earned freedoms for a little more security. In the end we are not any more secure only a little less free.

Pacifier · 03-31-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

How many non-gun homicides occur in the US and England each year? if guns are the reason the US has so many gun deaths, then we should have a comparable rate of non-gun homicieds to England, right? But we don't. Americans kill more people than English people do. Guns, no guns, the tool doesn't matter. It's the intent of the person that is what's important.

Thats sadly true, in America the change to get murdered is much higher than in the UK
(0.04 murders per 1000 compared to 0.01)

So you agree that the US soceity is pathological violent? Would you sell a gun to a pathological violent person?

More serious:
Why do you think the US soceity is so violent?

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-31-2005, 10:03 AM

It's probably some phenomia likened to that of Rome's fixation with the Gladiators and such, only difference is we get Kill Bill.

MSD · 03-31-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

Interesting solution. More guns in school will solve our problems.

More guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens will significantly reduce the rate of violent crimes acorss the board, not just in schools.

Paq · 03-31-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

More guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens will significantly reduce the rate of violent crimes acorss the board, not just in schools.

yep..worked so well in the wild wild west

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-31-2005, 01:19 PM

You do realize the wild wild west was not quite so wild as it was portrayed?

So any nay-sayers of the FACT that law abiding citizens with guns actually decreases crime care to take a stab at any of the numbers I've put fourth? Or are you just going to keep singing the same old ridiculously false tune?

Pacifier · 03-31-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So any nay-sayers of the FACT that law abiding citizens with guns actually decreases crime care to take a stab at any of the numbers I've put fourth?

It is also a FACT that a lot of nations with strict gun laws have far less crimes than the US. see germany for example.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-31-2005, 01:24 PM

How strict are Germany's gun laws?

liquidlight · 03-31-2005, 01:41 PM

How about this then:

YOU stop trying to take away my gun, and in return I won't question your right to disapprove of that gun.

It's called democracy, and free agency, whether you like it or not you do not have the right or the authority to tell me that I can't legally own a gun. I have my reasons for supporting legal firearms, while you don't agree with those reasons it doesn't make them any less relevant or factual.

And I pray to God that the day never comes that another group of people gain the majority to give themselves the authority to take away my gun and violate my right to choose for myself how to defend myself and my family.

I also pray that someday mankind as a whole will evolve enough of a social conscience and respect for each other to render that type of protection unnecessary, however that time is not now, nor any time in the near future. When it comes you won't have to make a law to take away my gun, I would be glad to give it up because I will no longer have need of it.

daswig · 03-31-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Thats sadly true, in America the change to get murdered is much higher than in the UK
(0.04 murders per 1000 compared to 0.01)

So you agree that the US soceity is pathological violent? Would you sell a gun to a pathological violent person?

More serious:
Why do you think the US soceity is so violent?

American society is indeed much more violent that some other societies. But pathologically violent? Nope.

There are a wide variety of reasons why American society is more violent than other societies are. Guns, however, are not one of the reasons. A supermajority of Americans who die by firearms are deliberate suicides. If you look at the societies that most think of as being less violent than the US, you'll find that their suicide rates vary greatly, and in many cases are equal to or greater than the US suicide rate. They just use other methods than guns.

It's illegal to sell a gun to somebody who is pathologically violent in the US. That's what the "adjudicated mentally defective" language in Federal law is all about. I don't see why the majority of people should be denied their civil liberties because a small minority of people are insane. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an American Civil Liberty enumerated in the US Bill of Rights. Using your argument, all Americans should be in mental institutes because some Americans are crazy.

The balancing act is between keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerously prone to violence, while not infringing upon the civil rights of those who are not. Gun control does the exact opposite....it keeps guns out of the hands of those people who obey the law, and does absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those who break the law. In fact, SCOTUS has ruled in the past that gun control schemes don't apply to criminals, not based upon the Second Amendment, but based upon the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of the right against self-incrimination since it is an additional criminal violation for criminals to possess guns and the reporting element of gun control laws violates that right.

daswig · 03-31-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Well to get us back on track .....

As a 10+ year member of the NRA I see no need for teachers to be armed. Armed security should be sufficient. I believe it would be to difficult to insure that all teachers have a secure place to store their firearm. Even arming security guards imposes problems with keeping their firearms secure at all times. We certainly don't need our schools resembling prisons with high walls, guard towers, metal detectors and dogs.

If a State has a CCW law allowing people to get a CCW permit and legally carry a gun, why should teachers be stripped of this just because they are teachers?

daswig · 03-31-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

It is also a FACT that a lot of nations with strict gun laws have far less crimes than the US. see germany for example.

You have a logical fallacy here. Your argument is that because a country has strict gun control laws, they have less crime. Do you have some evidence of causality? Why should Germany's crime rate for crimes not involving guns be lower than the same crime rate in the US if it's the scarcity of guns that's the issue that prevents crime? If Germany's simple assault rate is far lower than the US's simple assault rate, how is that connected to Germany's gun laws? If Germany has a lower vehicular homicide rate than the US, how is that connected to the gun control laws? And if Germany's crime rates for crimes not involving guns is lower than the US crime rate for crimes not involving guns, then if the gun control laws were equal, wouldn't Germany still have a lower rate of crimes involving guns than the US does, since their society has far less crime overall?

You seem to equate "less guns=less crime". That's simply not based upon reality.

MageB420666 · 03-31-2005, 05:50 PM

U.S. population = 295,777,738
German population = 82,424,609

(According to the U.S. Census website, information last updated in September of 2004)

Maybe this will help explain the disparity of crime rates. Just to help explain where I'm coming from, here is a scenario: Let's say that the percent of the population in both the U.S. and Germany that will commit a violent crime is the same, let's say it's 0.005%. That means that in the U.S. 1.5 million people will commit a violent crime in their lifetime, in Germany the number is just over 412,000. These stats have been made up, but it explains my theory.

RAGEAngel9 · 03-31-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

If a State has a CCW law allowing people to get a CCW permit and legally carry a gun, why should teachers be stripped of this just because they are teachers?

I could possibly be convinced that high school teachers be allowed to carry.
However, below that I would flat out refuse. It's school and supposedly a learning environment. I know US schools have gone to hell, but we need to have some hope. I would like to believe that all of our schools do not have to become military schools to become useful again.

NOTE- I am not against CCW in general.

daswig · 03-31-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MageB420666

U.S. population = 295,777,738
German population = 82,424,609

(According to the U.S. Census website, information last updated in September of 2004)

Maybe this will help explain the disparity of crime rates. Just to help explain where I'm coming from, here is a scenario: Let's say that the percent of the population in both the U.S. and Germany that will commit a violent crime is the same, let's say it's 0.005%. That means that in the U.S. 1.5 million people will commit a violent crime in their lifetime, in Germany the number is just over 412,000. These stats have been made up, but it explains my theory.

Ummm....crime rates are expressed generally on a per capita basis. In other words, with many crime rates, you'll see it's ".04" or something like that, which means for every 100,000 people in the country, .04 will have that whatever happen to them.

daswig · 03-31-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

I could possibly be convinced that high school teachers be allowed to carry.
However, below that I would flat out refuse. It's school and supposedly a learning environment. I know US schools have gone to hell, but we need to have some hope. I would like to believe that all of our schools do not have to become military schools to become useful again.

NOTE- I am not against CCW in general.

How would it be turning them into military schools? CCW is exactly that....CONCEALED.

If you give criminals a location that they KNOW that there are no armed people, you've essentially told them "It's OK to do whatever you want here, because you can't be shot until the cops get here".

Pacifier · 03-31-2005, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

How strict are Germany's gun laws?

I can't buy a gun unless I can proove some need, (bodyguards and such; or if I'm member of a gun sports club) and you have to be full age.
I never tought about owing a gun, so I'm don't know much about those regulations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

You have a logical fallacy here. Your argument is that because a country has strict gun control laws, they have less crime.

No, I just wanted to point out, that you don't need guns to have low crime rate there seem to be other methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Do you have some evidence of causality?

You also don't have the evidence for the rising crime in UK.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
thats for australia, but i guess similar is true for the UK

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

If Germany's simple assault rate is far lower than the US's simple assault rate, how is that connected to Germany's gun laws?

It is far lower (7.7 per 1000 compared to 1.41)
I believe that guns have do not have a huge impact to the crime rate at all, there are other reasons for crime, that was my question that as been dodged, why is america so violent? Perhaps it is the american attitude that most problems can be solved with violence (and to that attitude guns would have an impact, among a lot of other factors)?

scout · 04-01-2005, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

If a State has a CCW law allowing people to get a CCW permit and legally carry a gun, why should teachers be stripped of this just because they are teachers?

There is lots of places in the States with a CCW that you can't carry a gun. In Indiana for example its illegal to carry your weapon into a government building such as a courthouse or into a bar even with a CCW. Sounds like reasonable judgement to me and it doesn't bother me to leave my .45 in the truck when I have official business to do in the government buildings. Likewise it seems fairly reasonable that if I should enter a bar that I should leave it in the truck due to the likelihood of trouble being started in such a place.

Where I work it's against the rules to have a firearm with me as I make my daily service calls, sometimes into the worst of neighborhoods with large amounts of cash. I can't say I've always heeded that rule while working but none the less its a rule and if something happens there's a chance I could lose my job. Better my job than my life. Likewise I see no reason to give teachers a blanket "license to carry" while on the job. If they have a concealed carry permit and they do happen to carry their weapon to work so be it, but I'm sure they will be much more careful without a security blanket than with one.

My real issue with giving teachers a "blanket" to carry while on the job is I remember some of the teachers I had HAHA. Pretty scary!! No really, I just find it hard to imagine how they are going to be able to secure that firearm to insure that it doesn't get stolen or worse. I've seen some people with CCW permits that apparently have no concept of securing their firearm, and I'm sure some of the teachers would get careless as well. Also, I really have no desire for my grandchildren to be taught by a teacher with a Colt Peacemaker strapped to his hip. Using your logic once a child reaches 18 and is able to get a CCW permit then he should also be legally able to pack his weapon to school.

I would rather put high voltage fences around the school and to enter everyone has to go through metal detectors manned by armed security if that's what it takes rather than having our children learn from a teacher that's got a .45 strapped to his/her hip. Once inside the building children shouldn't have to worry about a thing but learning and growing.

Sorry if I offend you but that's just the way I see it.

MSD · 04-01-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

My real issue with giving teachers a "blanket" to carry while on the job is I remember some of the teachers I had HAHA. Pretty scary!! No really, I just find it hard to imagine how they are going to be able to secure that firearm to insure that it doesn't get stolen or worse. I've seen some people with CCW permits that apparently have no concept of securing their firearm, and I'm sure some of the teachers would get careless as well. Also, I really have no desire for my grandchildren to be taught by a teacher with a Colt Peacemaker strapped to his hip. Using your logic once a child reaches 18 and is able to get a CCW permit then he should also be legally able to pack his weapon to school.

A teacher who has a CCW should be capable of carrying their weapon concealed, and should not have to worry about securing it. In most states, the legal age for CCW is 21, not 18, but if a student had a CCW and could handle and carry the weapon responsibly, I would not disapprove of him carrying it into school, provided that he could lock it up properly when changing for P.E, sports, etc. This is not plausible, seeing as most students would panic if they knew a fellow student was armed, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a student extending his ability to defend himself into the classroom. I will be carrying in school when I am licensed (not prohibited by state laws or university policy,) and nobody will ever know unless I tell them, or I am faced with a situation in which I need to prevent a violent crime from being committed against myself or someone nearby and the officers who patrol the school are not able to respond in time.

daswig · 04-01-2005, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

There is lots of places in the States with a CCW that you can't carry a gun... Likewise it seems fairly reasonable that if I should enter a bar that I should leave it in the truck due to the likelihood of trouble being started in such a place.

Here, at least, it's perfectly legal for somebody with a permit to carry a gun onto school property provided that they are not doing it with the mens rea to commit a crime. With bars, the rule SHOULD be one of "no drinking alcohol while armed." If you're not drinking alcohol, I have no problem with being armed.

Quote:

Likewise I see no reason to give teachers a blanket "license to carry" while on the job. If they have a concealed carry permit and they do happen to carry their weapon to work so be it, but I'm sure they will be much more careful without a security blanket than with one.

It wouldn't give teachers a blanket "license to carry". They'd have to get a permit just like anybody else.

Quote:

No really, I just find it hard to imagine how they are going to be able to secure that firearm to insure that it doesn't get stolen or worse. I've seen some people with CCW permits that apparently have no concept of securing their firearm, and I'm sure some of the teachers would get careless as well. Also, I really have no desire for my grandchildren to be taught by a teacher with a Colt Peacemaker strapped to his hip. Using your logic once a child reaches 18 and is able to get a CCW permit then he should also be legally able to pack his weapon to school.

It's ridiculously simple. Remember CCW means CONCEALED....ie you carry it on your person where people can't see it. When I was in college, I carried to class every day, and nobody had a problem. Of course, I went around to the PD and introduced myself and showed them my creds before I carried to class...

Quote:

I would rather put high voltage fences around the school and to enter everyone has to go through metal detectors manned by armed security if that's what it takes rather than having our children learn from a teacher that's got a .45 strapped to his/her hip. Once inside the building children shouldn't have to worry about a thing but learning and growing.

Sorry if I offend you but that's just the way I see it.

You're entitled to your opinion, and you didn't insult me, so relax. If a child is raised in an environment where they're made to feel like a criminal because of the security measures, that will have a negative psychological effect on them. I'd rather have kids educated in an environment where things were open, and criminals were kept away because they didn't know who was packing. Something like 46 states currently have either "may issue" or "shall issue" CCW licensing. And the people in those 46 states don't go around in their daily lives worrying about who MIGHT have a CCW permit, do they?

Holdem Dvorak · 04-02-2005, 01:02 AM

Actually at my high school there is an armed cop that walks our hallways. He can call for backup. How about more metal detectors or something defensive like that. I'm not anti gun or anything. But guns in schools? Really its sad.

Your pal Holdem

daswig · 04-02-2005, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holdem Dvorak

Actually at my high school there is an armed cop that walks our hallways. He can call for backup. How about more metal detectors or something defensive like that. I'm not anti gun or anything. But guns in schools? Really its sad.

There was an armed cop inside Columbine when the school shooting started there. He pulled a "Brave Sir Robin" and ran away. At least one of the people who died at Columbine died from what was normally a non-life threatening wound. He bled out when the cops left him there and refused to allow the students to carry the teacher to safety and medical attention.

If you put your life and your faith in the hands of the cop's response, you DESERVE to die. Why? Because you abrogated your right to self defense to an agency which the courts have said have NO duty to protect an individual member of society.

scout · 04-02-2005, 02:51 AM

Perhaps I didn't make my case clear enough, it was early and I wasn't quite awake yet. I don't believe there is any state laws preventing teachers from carrying their weapons here in the State of Indiana just as there is no law preventing me from carrying my weapon in my van while at work, none that I'm aware of anyway. By passing a law it in effect gives the teachers a security "blanket" if you will to protect them from liability in the unfortunate case something stupid should happen. By leaving the current law in place, as is advocated by the NRA in almost every other circumstance, the teacher can carry their concealed weapon to work even if it is against the policies of the school system they currently work in. Much like I carry my weapon with me on late night service calls in neighborhoods of ill repute, better to be jobless and judged by 12 than carried by 6. In the case of the teachers I believe just the threat of losing their jobs if something stupid happens will cause them to be much more careful and watch what they are doing much more closely. If they would happen to truly do something heroic and save a bunch of lives then I seriously doubt they would lose their job but be reprimanded. I doubt public opinion would allow them to lose their job if they truly done something considered heroic. However, if something were to happen and they accidentally shot innocent children while attempting to save others then they should be judged by 12 just as you or I. This is one situation where collateral damage is unacceptable!

03-31-2005, 10:03 AM	#85 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's probably some phenomia likened to that of Rome's fixation with the Gladiators and such, only difference is we get Kill Bill. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-31-2005, 01:19 PM	#88 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	You do realize the wild wild west was not quite so wild as it was portrayed? So any nay-sayers of the FACT that law abiding citizens with guns actually decreases crime care to take a stab at any of the numbers I've put fourth? Or are you just going to keep singing the same old ridiculously false tune? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-31-2005, 01:24 PM	#90 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How strict are Germany's gun laws? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-31-2005, 01:41 PM	#91 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	How about this then: YOU stop trying to take away my gun, and in return I won't question your right to disapprove of that gun. It's called democracy, and free agency, whether you like it or not you do not have the right or the authority to tell me that I can't legally own a gun. I have my reasons for supporting legal firearms, while you don't agree with those reasons it doesn't make them any less relevant or factual. And I pray to God that the day never comes that another group of people gain the majority to give themselves the authority to take away my gun and violate my right to choose for myself how to defend myself and my family. I also pray that someday mankind as a whole will evolve enough of a social conscience and respect for each other to render that type of protection unnecessary, however that time is not now, nor any time in the near future. When it comes you won't have to make a law to take away my gun, I would be glad to give it up because I will no longer have need of it. __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed. Last edited by liquidlight; 03-31-2005 at 01:43 PM..

03-31-2005, 05:50 PM	#95 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	U.S. population = 295,777,738 German population = 82,424,609 (According to the U.S. Census website, information last updated in September of 2004) Maybe this will help explain the disparity of crime rates. Just to help explain where I'm coming from, here is a scenario: Let's say that the percent of the population in both the U.S. and Germany that will commit a violent crime is the same, let's say it's 0.005%. That means that in the U.S. 1.5 million people will commit a violent crime in their lifetime, in Germany the number is just over 412,000. These stats have been made up, but it explains my theory. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

03-31-2005, 03:19 AM	#83 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Well to get us back on track ..... As a 10+ year member of the NRA I see no need for teachers to be armed. Armed security should be sufficient. I believe it would be to difficult to insure that all teachers have a secure place to store their firearm. Even arming security guards imposes problems with keeping their firearms secure at all times. We certainly don't need our schools resembling prisons with high walls, guard towers, metal detectors and dogs. The cost of freedom is sometimes higher than we anticipate. There is nothing we can do about these random school shootings if we still wish to remain in a free society. To often we are willing to give up hard earned freedoms for a little more security. In the end we are not any more secure only a little less free.

04-02-2005, 01:02 AM	#103 (permalink)
Holdem Dvorak Tilted Location: The land of the silent S	Actually at my high school there is an armed cop that walks our hallways. He can call for backup. How about more metal detectors or something defensive like that. I'm not anti gun or anything. But guns in schools? Really its sad. Your pal Holdem

04-02-2005, 02:51 AM	#105 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Perhaps I didn't make my case clear enough, it was early and I wasn't quite awake yet. I don't believe there is any state laws preventing teachers from carrying their weapons here in the State of Indiana just as there is no law preventing me from carrying my weapon in my van while at work, none that I'm aware of anyway. By passing a law it in effect gives the teachers a security "blanket" if you will to protect them from liability in the unfortunate case something stupid should happen. By leaving the current law in place, as is advocated by the NRA in almost every other circumstance, the teacher can carry their concealed weapon to work even if it is against the policies of the school system they currently work in. Much like I carry my weapon with me on late night service calls in neighborhoods of ill repute, better to be jobless and judged by 12 than carried by 6. In the case of the teachers I believe just the threat of losing their jobs if something stupid happens will cause them to be much more careful and watch what they are doing much more closely. If they would happen to truly do something heroic and save a bunch of lives then I seriously doubt they would lose their job but be reprimanded. I doubt public opinion would allow them to lose their job if they truly done something considered heroic. However, if something were to happen and they accidentally shot innocent children while attempting to save others then they should be judged by 12 just as you or I. This is one situation where collateral damage is unacceptable! Last edited by scout; 04-02-2005 at 02:54 AM.. Reason: spelling .... grrrrrr!!